Ron Beron Posted October 8, 2006 Share Posted October 8, 2006 Any thoughts on why this is missing from Mark?UDIt never happened?? Link to comment
Uncle Dale Posted October 8, 2006 Share Posted October 8, 2006 It never happened??I think a more reasonable answer is that it DID happen, but not in the way that Matthew portrays the scene.Perhaps Matthew has here conflated two different strains of the oral tradition, from the early Jesus followers. The first part of the pericope roughly parallels Mark and the Coptic Gospel of Thomas. The remainder is unique to Matthew (though partly echoed in Luke 5 and in John 1).My thoughts are that the Greek Matthew writer was working from a combination of the previous Aramaic Matthew, oral traditions and Q. In either the proto-Matthew or in Petrine tradition he found the old rock/church information fragment, and "glued" it onto the story as preserved in Mark -- perhaps the Greek Matthew writer ever had the Markan text available for consultation (or otherwise knew it).I might also guess that the version given in John 1:40 is closer to the original oral traditions than what we find in Matthew. Parts of John have the look and feel of an eye-witness account. John may have it best and Matthew's handiwork may be more problematic.Mark and Thomas had other reasons to shape the story as they give it.UD Link to comment
Catholic Guy Posted October 8, 2006 Share Posted October 8, 2006 The ECF's never taught that Peter was the first "pope", or "head of the church", or anything else of the sort.TheophilusWrong! Let me guess you are going to give me some more out of context ECF quotes to prove your point, like the ones James White uses. For example:From St. Cyril of Jerusalem:"If anyone asks for what cause he asked Simon only, though the other disciples were present, and what he means by â??Feed my lambsâ?? and the like, we answer that Peter, with the other disciples, had been already chosen to the apostleship. But because meanwhile Peter had fallen (for under great fear he had thrice denied the Lord), he [Christ] now heals him that was sick and exacts a threefold confession in place of his triple denial, contrasting the former with the latter and compensating the fault with the correction."White however chooses to ignore the rest of the work:"He [Christ] promises to found the Church, assigning immovableness to it, as he is the Lord of strength, and over this [the Church] he sets Peter as shepherd." Looks to me that Cyril agrees with the Catholic position of Peters Primacy. Christ doesn't appoint him as a 'shepherd" but as the Head "Shepherd." Cyril also calls Peter "the chiefest and foremost of the apostles."Johnny gave you more links and quotes from the ECF's on the Primacy of Peter, you should also read the writings of Clement of Rome and realize your statement is unfounded and weak. I will give you at least one more quote from a very important ECF.St John Chrysostom "He was the chosen one of the apostles, the mouth of the disciples, the leader of the band; on this account also Paul went up upon a time to inquire of him rather than the others. And at the same time to show him that he must now be of good cheer, since the denial was done away, Jesus puts into his hands the chief authority among the brethren; and he brings forward not the denial, nor reproaches him with what had taken place, but says, "If you love me, preside over your brethren, and show now the warm love that you have always manifested and in which you rejoiced; and the life that you said you would lay down for me now give for my sheep" (Commentary on St. Johnâ??s Gospel, homily 88). A little further on he states that Jesus "appointed" Peter "teacher of the world."That should put your misguided statement about the ECF's to bed. With regards to your original post directed at me, I will address your "INFALLIBLE TEACHINGS" on biblical passages later. This should not be a problem because you have demonstrated over and over your Cyrus I. Scofield method of interpreting the Bible. I will leave you with this thought from Pope Leo (440-461) "Yet anyone who holds that the headship must be denied to Peter cannot really diminish his dignity, but is puffed up with the breath of his pride, and plunges himself into the lowest depth."Catholic Guy Link to comment
why me Posted October 8, 2006 Share Posted October 8, 2006 You've gotta love it when Catholics and Mormons are on the same side of the argument.Both claim truth and both have truth. I see a lot of similiarites between mormons and catholics in moral outlook and commandments. It is the protestants who gave protest and they have never stopped protesting, thereby loosing needed traditions to create a healthly Christian lifestyle.Peter is the rock and he possessed the keys. Theo is on shakey ground and like many protestant pastors before him, if he would study catholic theology and the bible, he would become a catholic.Wrong! Let me guess you are going to give me some more out of context ECF quotes to prove your point, like the ones James White uses. For example:From St. Cyril of Jerusalem:"If anyone asks for what cause he asked Simon only, though the other disciples were present, and what he means by â??Feed my lambsâ?? and the like, we answer that Peter, with the other disciples, had been already chosen to the apostleship. But because meanwhile Peter had fallen (for under great fear he had thrice denied the Lord), he [Christ] now heals him that was sick and exacts a threefold confession in place of his triple denial, contrasting the former with the latter and compensating the fault with the correction."White however chooses to ignore the rest of the work:"He [Christ] promises to found the Church, assigning immovableness to it, as he is the Lord of strength, and over this [the Church] he sets Peter as shepherd." Looks to me that Cyril agrees with the Catholic position of Peters Primacy. Christ doesn't appoint him as a 'shepherd" but as the Head "Shepherd." Cyril also calls Peter "the chiefest and foremost of the apostles."Johnny gave you more links and quotes from the ECF's on the Primacy of Peter, you should also read the writings of Clement of Rome and realize your statement is unfounded and weak. I will give you at least one more quote from a very important ECF.St John Chrysostom "He was the chosen one of the apostles, the mouth of the disciples, the leader of the band; on this account also Paul went up upon a time to inquire of him rather than the others. And at the same time to show him that he must now be of good cheer, since the denial was done away, Jesus puts into his hands the chief authority among the brethren; and he brings forward not the denial, nor reproaches him with what had taken place, but says, "If you love me, preside over your brethren, and show now the warm love that you have always manifested and in which you rejoiced; and the life that you said you would lay down for me now give for my sheep" (Commentary on St. Johnâ??s Gospel, homily 88). A little further on he states that Jesus "appointed" Peter "teacher of the world."That should put your misguided statement about the ECF's to bed. With regards to your original post directed at me, I will address your "INFALLIBLE TEACHINGS" on biblical passages later. This should not be a problem because you have demonstrated over and over your Cyrus I. Scofield method of interpreting the Bible. I will leave you with this thought from Pope Leo (440-461) "Yet anyone who holds that the headship must be denied to Peter cannot really diminish his dignity, but is puffed up with the breath of his pride, and plunges himself into the lowest depth."Catholic GuyGreat post Catholic guy. Since my reinvestigation into my old faith, I just love it. Catholicism has so much to offer an active catholic...the problem is getting catholics to live their religion. But with the help of EWTN, they are doing a good job in their attempt to get catholics closer to god. Make room for Theo! Link to comment
Catholic Guy Posted October 8, 2006 Share Posted October 8, 2006 Catholic Guy tries to argue for the "primacy" of Peter in the Bible, the alleged doctrine supporting the idea of the Papacy, and the idea that LDS borrow to support their Prophet, and "quorums" (eg. first presidency, quorum of the 12, etc.)Peter's name occurs first in all lists of apostles (see Mt 10:2; Mk 3:16; Lk 6:14; Acts 1:13). Matthew even calls him "the first" (10:2). (Judas Iscariot is invariably mentioned last.)And this is relevant exactly why?When you have a list of 12 apostles, you have to list someone's name "first". Does that mean that whenever someone has a "list" of people, the first one must automatically be the "leader"?! Ridiculous! The only thing that is ridiculous is your logic with regard to the order of primacy or leadership given to thought, writing, and speech! When you think of the trinity do you put the Son before the Father? When you think of the Exodus of the Israelites do you put Aaron before Moses? How about the Ten Commandments, do you put â??You shall not stealâ? before â??You shall have no other gods before meâ?? I can go on and on to show you that your statement is flawed, but lets look at the order of the Apostles and ask some simple questions. Why didnâ??t the Gospels of Mathew and Mark mention Andrew first if Christ met them at the same time? In Luke 5 why would Christ say to Peter only and not to James and John â??Do not be afraid: from now on you will be catching menâ?? In John 1 Christ meets Andrew first and yet he gives Simon the new name Peter, why would Christ rename him the â??Rockâ? if there was no significance to it?Peter is almost without exception named first whenever he appears with anyone else. In one example to the contrary, Galatians 2:9, where he is listed after James and before John, he is clearly preeminent in the entire context [see, for example, 1:18-19; 2:7-8]Thank you for admitting that he wasn't always named "first".So much for your point.So much for "Petrine primacy".This is the exception not the rule, be careful to mind your historical context and remember that James was the head of the Church in Galatia and that Peter and John had departed. Paul gave him the courtesy of being mentioned to his flock before Peter and John. This does not deny â??Petrine Primacyâ?, it demonstrates Paulâ??s understanding of pastoral authority. Peter alone among the apostles receives a new name, "Rock," solemnly conferred (Jn 1:42; Mt 16:18). "Solemnly"?!Where do you find that in the Bible?One thing about names. People have found that when everyone is given the same name, things get confusing. A preferred characteristic about names is that everyone is given a different one, so people can be distinguished from others. So it's hardly any surprise (or worthy of any significance, IMO) that no one else was named "Rock" after that name was alrady given.As to who the True Rock actually is, I would hope everyone realizes that the True Rock of Christianity, the firm foundation, the foundation of stone, is none else than Christ Jesus Himself:1Co 10:4 And did all drink the same spiritual drink: for they drank of that spiritual Rock that followed them: and that Rock was Christ. Maybe, just maybe, the reason Simon Peter was given the name, "Rock", was because God gave him the faith to proclaim that Christ was the Rock (Matt. 16:18), or does that make too much sense?Tell me Theophilus who else in the Bible did Christ give this title too? I do agree with you that if everyone is given the same name that a narrative could become very confusing, but once again your thinking is flawed by the simple question of why didnâ??t Christ just call him Simon and all the other Simons something else? Why did Christ think it a necessity to rename him the Rock and not something like sand or grass?Your right that Christ is the Rock and we all acknowledge that the Church is the Body of Christ. You proved my point that Christ handed this to Peter to continue and guide after He was gone.Likewise, Peter is regarded by Jesus as the chief shepherd after himself (Jn 21:15-17), singularly by name, and over the universal Church, even though others have a similar but subordinate role (Acts 20:28; 1 Pt 5:2).Um, no.Catholics seem to predictably forget Peter's thrice denial of Christ (not something one wishes to remember if one thinks Peter the alleged "head" of the church!). The reason for Christ's three-fold "feed my sheep/lambs" at the end of John, was not some alleged "elevation" of Peter above the others, but simply a reconciliation for his three-fold denial. Far from "elevating" Peter, it simply brings him back up to the same level as the rest of the apostles (which he previously wasn't, since he thrice rejected Christ, while none of the others did).We do not forget his thrice denial of Christ, we just donâ??t see this as proof against his primacy. This James White tactic of lessening Peterâ??s position by misquoting Cyril of Jerusalem was addressed in my previous post.Peter alone among the apostles is mentioned by name as having been prayed for by Jesus Christ in order that his "faith fail not" (Lk 22:32). Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.You are appealing to absence, here.Other apostles may (or may not) have prayed for Christ. It is self-serving for you to make claims about what we have not been told.Indeed, a lot of these so-called "evidences" are what James White refers to as the "Peter syndrome", which is basically trying to interpret any and all references to "Peter" as some sort of reference to an imaginary "papacy" or "primacy".Freud said, "Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar."I say, "Sometimes Peter is just Peter."Then show me the evidence that states otherwise. I would think a Sola Scriptura Protestant like yourself would be satisfied with an answer like that, or does that not work when goes against the very grain of your beliefs.More James White? Why donâ??t I just quote Karl Keating, Jimmy Akin, Patrick Madrid, Dave Armstrong, and Steven Oâ??Reilly when it comes to easily refuting and dissecting Whites body of Jack Chick style Anti-Catholic work into the wafer thin foundation (Cephas) that it is. With regards to Freudâ??s statement, I think some of our past Presidents would disagree. ..........to be continued Link to comment
why me Posted October 8, 2006 Share Posted October 8, 2006 I think that catholic guy is bringing up great points. As I understand more about the catholic faith and its problems with protestant ministers and the conversions of many protestant ministers to the catholic faith, I have to say, that in an scriptorial argument, the catholic theologian usually wins hands down. But I also need to conclude, that when I have read some of these conversion stories, the former protestants were usually a rabid anticatholic. It was only through close bible reading, that they understood that the protestant understanding of Christ was flawed. And now many of these former protestants have found new peace and a great sense of doctrinal foundation that is in the catholic church. Theo, have you read 'Surprsed by Truth' a book where 11 catholic converts give biblical and historical reasons for becoming catholic? It is a must read. It is authored by Patrick Madrid and published by Basilica Press (1994) Their stories are highly educational for knowledgable protestants like yourself. Link to comment
Theophilus Posted October 8, 2006 Author Share Posted October 8, 2006 First of all,Let me say I don't appreciate being ganged up on.It's almost impossible to reply, given all the posts by different people, and all the ad hominem, etc. etc. Doubtless that was the intent, so that I would be intimidated to not respond, then all the Catholics and LDS could claim "victory!" by forfeit. Apparently there are many here who are more interested in posturing, and debate tactics, and various logical fallacies (guilty by association, poisoning the well, etc. etc.), than they are interested in Biblical truth.We have LDS here from the peanut gallery, chiming in, "Way to go Catholics! You really showed Theo!", even though everyone here knows that the LDS are hardly unbiased, they have a "horse" in this race, and that horse is Petrine Primacy, the backbone of the LDS "Presidency".Clement of Alexandria[T]he blessed Peter, the chosen, the preeminent, the first among the disciples, for whom alone with himself the Savior paid the tribute [Matt. 17:27], quickly grasped and understood their meaning. And what does he say? "Behold, we have left all and have followed you" [Matt. 19:2 7, Mark 10:28] (Who is the Rich Man That is Saved? 21:3-5 [A.D. 200]).Where does this talk about "papacy", or "head of the church"?Nowhere, that's where.This is referring to a particular gospel account, the account of the rich young ruler who would not give up his possessions to enter the kingdom of God. After Jesus finished this, Peter was simply the "first" to chime in, in response. So what does that "prove"?! Nothing, of course. And let's study the account. About giving away all one's possessions, Jesus says, "with men this is impossible, but with God all things are possible". Peter basically responds (in his usual impetuous nature), and basically says, "No, Jesus, it's not impossible with men... You're wrong. We did it! So what do we get?!" That's hardly the response of the alleged "leader" of the church.Letter of Clement to JamesBe it known to you, my lord, that Simon [Peter], who, for the sake of the true faith, and the most sure foundation of his doctrine, was set apart to be the foundation of the Church, and for this end was by Jesus himself, with his truthful mouth, named Peter, the first-fruits of our Lord, the first of the apostles; to whom first the Father revealed the Son; whom the Christ, with good reason, blessed; the called, and elect (Letter of Clement to James 2 [A.D, 221]).Yes, anyone who is familiar with the gospels knows that Peter was the first apostle chosen by Jesus (Matt. 4:18, etc). So this isn't about "papacy", or "leadership", it is simply about the chronological selection of apostles.These are perfect examples, of course, of the "Peter syndrome", looking for and interpreting anything "good" sounding about Peter, as allegedly referring to the Papacy, completely ignoring the context.CyprianWith a false bishop appointed for themselves by heretics, they dare even to set sail and carry letters from schismatics and blasphemers to the Chair of Peter and to the principal church [at Rome], in which sacerdotal unity has its source" (Epistle to Cornelius [bishop of Rome] 59:14 [A.D. 252]).This is an incomplete reference, as Cyprian wrote a number of epistles to Cornelius, and none of them contain the phrase, "Chair of Peter".The Lord says to Peter: "I say to you," he says, "that you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church" . . . On him he builds the Church, and to him he gives the command to feed the sheep John 21:17], and although he assigns a like power to all the apostles, yet he founded a single chair [cathedra], and he established by his own authority a source and an intrinsic reason for that unity. Indeed, the others were that also which Peter was [i.e., apostles], but a primacy is given to Peter, whereby it is made clear that there is but one Church and one chair. So too, all [the apostles] are shepherds, and the flock is shown to be one, fed by all the apostles in single-minded accord. If someone does not hold fast to this unity of Peter, can he imagine that he still holds the faith? If he [should] desert the chair of Peter upon whom the Church was built, can he still be confident that he is in the Church? (The Unity of the Catholic Church 4 [A.D. 251]).Your quotes are becoming highly suspect at this point.Here is Cyprian's Treatise, as found at ccel.org:----- begin quote -----4. If any one consider and examine these things, there is no need for lengthened discussion and arguments. There is easy proof for faith in a short summary of the truth. The Lord speaks to Peter,10 saying, "I say unto thee, that thou art Peter; and upon this rock I will build my Church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven; and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound also in heaven, and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven."11 And again to the same He says, after His resurrection, "Feed nay sheep."12 "13 yet, that He might set forth unity, He arranged by His authority the origin of that unity, as beginning from one. Assuredly the rest of the apostles were also the same as was Peter, endowed with a like partnership both of honour and power; but the beginning proceeds from unity.14 Which one Church, also, the Holy Spirit in the Song of Songs designated in the person of our Lord, and says, "My dove, my spotless one, is but one. She is the only one of her mother, elect of her that bare her."15 Does he who does not hold this unity of the Church think that he holds the faith? Does he who strives against and resists the Church16 trust that he is in the Church, when moreover the blessed Apostle Paul teaches the same thing, and sets forth the sacrament of unity, saying, "There is one body and one spirit, one hope of your calling, one Lord, one faith, one baptism, one God? "17 ----- end quote -----No mention of "primacy given to Peter".No mention of "single chair [cathedra]".No mentin of "the chair of Peter".The point of Cyprian here, is simply that even though there are Twelve disciples ("like partnership both of honour and power"), there was "unity", there was one gospel.I have to wonder, Johnny, if you took this from the original text of Cyprian, or whether you simply lifted it out of some Quote book (Jergens?), like so many other Catholic "apologists".Onto the next diatribe...Theophilus Link to comment
Theophilus Posted October 8, 2006 Author Share Posted October 8, 2006 Wrong! Let me guess you are going to give me some more out of context ECF quotesLogical Fallacy #5, "Poisoning the Well".Give a derogatory label to the person's response, sight unseen, so that readers already have that perception "a priori". Catholic Guy, are you more interested in determining God's truth, or simply winning some "debate" (with questionable fallacious tactics)? to prove your point, like the ones James White uses.Logical Fallacy #3, "Guilt By Association"Name someone with an allegedly poor reputation (eg. James White, or Jack Chick), and group your opponent into that same group, so that the reputation "sticks". From St. Cyril of Jerusalem:"If anyone asks for what cause he asked Simon only, though the other disciples were present, and what he means by â??Feed my lambsâ?? and the like, we answer that Peter, with the other disciples, had been already chosen to the apostleship. But because meanwhile Peter had fallen (for under great fear he had thrice denied the Lord), he [Christ] now heals him that was sick and exacts a threefold confession in place of his triple denial, contrasting the former with the latter and compensating the fault with the correction."Thank you for proving my point earlier, from none other than Cyril himself!As I already pointed out (and as anyone familiar with the gospels knows), Peter's three-fold reinstatement of "feed by sheep" was not some "elevation" to "primacy", but was a reinstatement from his earlier three-fold denial of Christ. White however chooses to ignore the rest of the work:"He [Christ] promises to found the Church, assigning immovableness to it, as he is the Lord of strength, and over this [the Church] he sets Peter as shepherd." Looks to me that Cyril agrees with the Catholic position of Peters Primacy. Christ doesn't appoint him as a 'shepherd" but as the Head "Shepherd." Cyril also calls Peter "the chiefest and foremost of the apostles."I have absolutely no problem with Peter being "shepherd".I find it curious, however, that you have to add to Cyril, by claiming he said that Peter was "head shepherd" (It says no such thing, of course).You also claim, "Cyril also calls Peter, 'the chiefest and foremonst of the apostles.' "Where does Cyril do that? Certainly not in your quoted/cited section.And even if he calls him that elsewhere, how is that a claim to "papacy"?Johnny gave you more links and quotes from the ECF's on the Primacy of Peter, you should also read the writings of Clement of Rome and realize your statement is unfounded and weak. No, I realize that your position is "unfounded and weak".You (and Johnny) have yet to give an accurate, compelling assetion by the ECF's that Peter was the "head of the church".A little further on he states that Jesus "appointed" Peter "teacher of the world."Again, I simply note that Peter was not singled out as "the" teacher of the world, but the phrase is anarthrous, "[a] teacher of the world". And I have absolutely no problem with Peter (and the rest of Christ's apostles) being teachers of the world.Doesn't prove "petrine primacy".Doesn't make Peter "head of the church".That should put your misguided statement about the ECF's to bed. Not at all.All it does is demonstrate to me that Catholics will cling to anything, no matter how weak, to try to read into the ECF's their belief of "Petrine primacy". With regards to your original post directed at me, I will address your "INFALLIBLE TEACHINGS" on biblical passages later. This should not be a problem because you have demonstrated over and over your Cyrus I. Scofield method of interpreting the Bible. More ad hominem.How nice.I will leave you with this thought from Pope Leo (440-461) "Yet anyone who holds that the headship must be denied to Peter cannot really diminish his dignity, but is puffed up with the breath of his pride, and plunges himself into the lowest depth."More ad hominem.And even using the words of a Pope to do it.I'm not impressed.By such remarks, "Catholic Guy", you say far more about your own character than about mine.IMO.TheophilusTheo is on shakey ground and like many protestant pastors before him, if he would study catholic theology and the bible, he would become a catholic.Actually, I've studied Catholic theology, church history, and the Bible.And precisely because of that, I could never become Roman Catholic.TheophilusTheo, have you read 'Surprsed by Truth' a book where 11 catholic converts give biblical and historical reasons for becoming catholic? It is a must read. It is authored by Patrick Madrid and published by Basilica Press (1994) Their stories are highly educational for knowledgable protestants like yourself.I've read a number of "testimonies" from all three books in the series, and I wasn't impressed. Most of them simply demonstrated an ignorance of authentic Bible teaching, which prevented them from realizing their errors of the Catholic Faith they converted to. TheophilusThe only thing that is ridiculous is your logic with regard to the order of primacy or leadership given to thought, writing, and speech! When you think of the trinity do you put the Son before the Father?The error in your "logic" is in your a priori assumption that "order" is meaningful here in the first place! What basis do you have for that assumption! Absolutely NOTHING! Your entire argument is specious beause it is a priori from the start. You are assuming your conclusion.In John 1 Christ meets Andrew first and yet he gives Simon the new name Peter, why would Christ rename him the â??Rockâ? if there was no significance to it?I never claimed "there was no significance to it".Of course there is significance to it. Peter was called "Rock", because he was the one who first recognized Christ as the true Rock (cf. 1 Cor. 10:4) with his confession (Matt. 16:16). Peter's new name doesn't say anything about himself. Like the prophets before him, who pointed to Christ, Peter's knew name points to Christ.Tell me Theophilus who else in the Bible did Christ give this title too? Asked and answered.You have yet to demonstrate that Peter begin given that name, appoints any inherent power or authority to him (ie. Peter). All you seem to be doing at the moment is assuming it.but once again your thinking is flawed by the simple question of why didnâ??t Christ just call him Simon and all the other Simons something else? Why did Christ think it a necessity to rename him the Rock and not something like sand or grass?See above.Peter's new name points to Christ (1 Cor. 10:4), just as his confession did.We do not forget his thrice denial of Christ, we just donâ??t see this as proof against his primacy.You seem not to understand.It was never offered as "proof against his (alleged) primacy".It was simply offered to show that your alleged "proof" for his "alleged" primacy, was no "proof" at all, since you blatantly misintepreted the reason for Peter's resinstatement.Then show me the evidence that states otherwise.I have absolutely no need or requirement to do so, of course.It is the Catholics (and LDS, by extension), who are arguing "Petrine primacy". Therefore, the burden of proof is on you, not on me.Theophilus Link to comment
why me Posted October 8, 2006 Share Posted October 8, 2006 First of all,Let me say I don't appreciate being ganged up on.It's almost impossible to reply, given all the posts by different people, and all the ad hominem, etc. etc. Doubtless that was the intent, so that I would be intimidated to not respond, then all the Catholics and LDS could claim "victory!" by forfeit. Apparently there are many here who are more interested in posturing, and debate tactics, and various logical fallacies (guilty by association, poisoning the well, etc. etc.), than they are interested in Biblical truth.We have LDS here from the peanut gallery, chiming in, "Way to go Catholics! You really showed Theo!", even though everyone here knows that the LDS are hardly unbiased, they have a "horse" in this race, and that horse is Petrine Primacy, the backbone of the LDS "Presidency".Where does this talk about "papacy", or "head of the church"?TheophilusI don't see a gang on at all. You are here giving Protestant insights to the lds and to the catholics on this board. Catholic and LDS posters do have a right to reply to your protestantisms. I have discovered new insights into the catholic church since my reinterest in the catholic faith, the faith of my youth. And yes, I have read the views of the protestant converts to the catholic faith. I find their stories very compelling and I have also heard other former protestant clergymen and women on EWTN who have converted to the catholic faith and why they did so. I thought that I should share aspects of these people with you. But I would not say that the posters are ganging up on you. Besides Theo, you are knowledgeable about your faith. And even though conventional protestantism is losing members, I still think that what you have to say is interesting. However, it does seem to me that Peter is at the head of Christ's church and these keys were given to him by Christ. I think that this is rather clear from the scripture. And yes, I thank the heavens that the lds have a prophet and the catholics have a pope, someone who leads those churches in these modern times. Depending on which faith it is, both claim to speak for God. And that brings peace to the soul and peace to the heart. That Christ is listening and giving to his church is a comfort for the lds or catholics. It is just a nice thought and it is seen in Peter. Link to comment
johnny Posted October 8, 2006 Share Posted October 8, 2006 Theophilus,It's almost impossible to reply, given all the posts by different people/I agree it is hard to reply to alot of different people ... therefore I will say "thank you" for the exchange and let you an Catholic Guy continue exchanging ideas. Link to comment
Theophilus Posted October 8, 2006 Author Share Posted October 8, 2006 St John Chrysostom "He was the chosen one of the apostles, the mouth of the disciples, the leader of the band; on this account also Paul went up upon a time to inquire of him rather than the others. And at the same time to show him that he must now be of good cheer, since the denial was done away, Jesus puts into his hands the chief authority among the brethren; and he brings forward not the denial, nor reproaches him with what had taken place, but says, "If you love me, preside over your brethren, and show now the warm love that you have always manifested and in which you rejoiced; and the life that you said you would lay down for me now give for my sheep" (Commentary on St. Johnâ??s Gospel, homily 88). Catholic Guy,I hope you realize also that Chrysostom rejected your main proof-text, Matt. 16:16-18, as to the "Rock" upon which Christ built His church allegedly referring to Peter:----- begin quote -----3. What then saith Christ? â??Thou art Simon, the son of Jonas; thou shalt be called Cephas.â??Thus since thou hast proclaimed my Father, I too name him that begat thee;â? all but saying, â??As thou art son of Jonas, even so am I of my Father.â? Else it were superfluous to say, "Thou art Son of Jonas;â? but since he had said, â??Son of God,â? to point out that He is so Son of God, as the other son of Jonas, of the same substance with Him that begat Him, therefore He added this, â??And I say unto thee, Thou art Peter, and upon this rock will I build my Church;â?that is, on the faith of his confession. Hereby He signifies that many were now on the point of believing, and raises his spirit, and makes him a shepherd. â??And the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.â? â??And if not against it, much more not against me. So be not troubled because thou art shortly to hear that I shall be betrayed and crucified.â? (Chrysostom, Homily LII, Matt. XV.21,22)----- end quote -----Theophilus Link to comment
David Waltz Posted October 8, 2006 Share Posted October 8, 2006 Hello Zeta,You posted:>>A couple of questions. Do you agree with this "Protestant NT scholars" analysis of this passage? From the Greek, are petros and petra really talking about the same "rock"? Do you believe that the usual LDS exegesis of the rock being "revelation given to the prophet" is incorrect? (At the very least, it satisfies this scholar's point about fitting the context.)>>Me: To answer your first question, yes, I do agree with Cullmanâ??s assessment (especially when we keep in mind that Jesus spoke Aramaic). Note the following from a Protestant apologetic website:Question: "What is the rock in Matthew 16:18?"Answer: The debate rages over whether â??the rockâ? on which Christ will build His church is Peter or Peterâ??s confession that Jesus is â??the Christ, the Son of the Living Godâ? (Matthew 16:16). In all honesty, there is no way for us to be 100% sure which view is correct. The grammatical construction allows for either view. In my study and analysis of the text, I feel that Peter is the â??rockâ? on which Christ will build His church. Jesus appears to be using a play on words. â??You are Peter (petros) and on this rock (petra) I will build my church.â? Since Peterâ??s name means rock, and Jesus is going to build His church on a rock â?? it appears that Christ is linking the two together. God used Peter greatly in the foundation of the church. It was Peter who first proclaimed the Gospel on the day of Pentecost (Acts 2:14-47). Peter was also the first to take the Gospel to the Gentiles (Acts 10:1-48). In a sense, Peter was the rock â??foundationâ? of the church.This interpretation of "upon this rock" is often used by the Roman Catholic Church as proof that it is the true church of God since it was founded by Peter. This is not the case. Peter being the rock in Matthew 16:18 is meaningless in giving the Roman Catholic Church any authority. Peter was not the first pope and Peter did not start the Roman Catholic Church. If Peter truly was the founder of the Roman Catholic Church, they would be in agreement with what Peter taught (Acts 2, 1 Peter, 2 Peter).Recommended Resource: Reasoning from the Scriptures with Catholics by Ron Rhodes.http://www.gotquestions.org/upon-this-rock.htmlThough the author of the above is anonymous, whoever wrote it affirms that they are: â??Christian, Protestant, conservative, evangelical, fundamental, and non-denominational.â? The author certainly has an anti-Catholic bias, and yet places this bias on the back-burner, and allows the text to speak for itself.IMHO the most natural reading of the text is that Petros is the petra (I can provide quotes from other Protestant scholars who support this view, most notably W. F. Albright, if you would like me to do so); as such, it would seem that it is an anti-Catholic bias which leads one to reject the more natural reading. As for your second question, I believe the traditional Latter-day Saint interpretation is based on a different bias, one based on the belief in continuing revelation. However, since Latter-day Saints do not believe in infallibility, the more natural reading could be adopted by faithful Mormons with little (perhaps no) impact on their over-all faith.Grace and peace,David Link to comment
St Veronica Posted October 8, 2006 Share Posted October 8, 2006 http://www.earlychurchfathers.org/belief.p...df22ba1eed40640http://www.earlychurchfathers.org/belief.p...df22ba1eed40640http://www.earlychurchfathers.org/belief.p...df22ba1eed40640http://www.catholicconvert.com/LinkClick.a...=83&mid=371http://www.catholicconvert.com/LinkClick.a...=83&mid=371http://www.catholicconvert.com/LinkClick.a...=83&mid=371Some interesting reading.SV Link to comment
urroner Posted October 8, 2006 Share Posted October 8, 2006 First of all,Let me say I don't appreciate being ganged up on.It's almost impossible to reply, given all the posts by different people, and all the ad hominem, etc. etc. Doubtless that was the intent, so that I would be intimidated to not respond, then all the Catholics and LDS could claim "victory!" by forfeit. Apparently there are many here who are more interested in posturing, and debate tactics, and various logical fallacies (guilty by association, poisoning the well, etc. etc.), than they are interested in Biblical truth.TheophilusSorry Theo, but I really don't feel sorry for you. You come and make statements that you know will do exactly what happened and then you complain about it. Besides, if I was to go and make disparaging comments about mainstream Christianity on some mainstream Christianity forum, would the reactions be any different.I have a friend who made a comment at some anti-Mormon meeting held by some mainstream Christian church and talked about getting ganged up on. He was thrown out of the meeting and had things thrown at him, not to mentioned some of the names he was called. And he was invited there to defend the Mormons.Nope Theo, I have no pity for you in this case. Link to comment
Catholic Guy Posted October 8, 2006 Share Posted October 8, 2006 Catholic Guy,I hope you realize also that Chrysostom rejected your main proof-text, Matt. 16:16-18, as to the "Rock" upon which Christ built His church allegedly referring to Peter:----- begin quote -----3. What then saith Christ? â??Thou art Simon, the son of Jonas; thou shalt be called Cephas.â??Thus since thou hast proclaimed my Father, I too name him that begat thee;â? all but saying, â??As thou art son of Jonas, even so am I of my Father.â? Else it were superfluous to say, "Thou art Son of Jonas;â? but since he had said, â??Son of God,â? to point out that He is so Son of God, as the other son of Jonas, of the same substance with Him that begat Him, therefore He added this, â??And I say unto thee, Thou art Peter, and upon this rock will I build my Church;â?that is, on the faith of his confession. Hereby He signifies that many were now on the point of believing, and raises his spirit, and makes him a shepherd. â??And the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.â? â??And if not against it, much more not against me. So be not troubled because thou art shortly to hear that I shall be betrayed and crucified.â? (Chrysostom, Homily LII, Matt. XV.21,22)----- end quote -----TheophilusContext, Context, Context! First you need to give the proper reference, your proof text is not from Homily LII, Matt. XV.21,22 it is from Homily LIV, Matt. XIV.13. I will now post your "proof text" in context with a proper source reference, I will put the section you posted in red:----- begin quote -----(Chrysostom, Homily LIV, Matt. XIV.13)What then saith Christ? "Thou art Simon, the son of Jonas; thou shalt be called Cephas.""Thus since thou hast proclaimed my Father, I too name him that begat thee;" all but saying, "As thou art son of Jonas, even so am I of my Father." Else it were superfluous to say, "Thou art Son of Jonas;" but since he had said, "Son of God," to point out that He is so Son of God, as the other son of Jonas, of the same substance with Him that begat Him, therefore He added this, "And I say unto thee, Thou art Peter, and upon this rock will I build my Church;"that is, on the faith of his confession. Hereby He signifies that many were now on the point of believing, and raises his spirit, and makes him a shepherd. "And the gates of hell" shall not prevail against it." "And if not against it, much more not against me. So be not troubled because thou art shortly to hear that I shall be betrayed and crucified." Then He mentions also another honor. "And I also will give thee the keys of the heavens."But what is this, "And I also will give thee?" "As the Father hath given thee to know me, so will I also give thee." And He said not, "I will entreat the Father" (although the manifestation of His authority was great, and the largeness of the gift unspeakable), but, "I will give thee." What dost Thou give? tell me. "The keys of the heavens, that whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth, shall be bound in Heaven,and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth, shall be loosed in Heaven." How then is it not "His to give to sit on His right hand, and on His left,"when He saith, "I will give thee"? Seest thou how He, His own self, leads Peter on to high thoughts of Him, and reveals Himself, and implies that He is Son of God by these two promises? For those things which are peculiar to God alone, (both to absolve sins, and to make the church in-capable of overthrow in such assailing waves, and to exhibit a man that is a fisher more solid than any rock, while all the world is at war with him), these He promises Himself to give; as the Father, speaking to Jeremiah, said, He would make him as "a brazen pillar, and as a wall;"but him to one nation only, this man in every part of the world. I would fain inquire then of those who desire to lessen the dignity of the Son, which manner of gifts were greater, those which the Father gave to Peter, or those which the Son gave him? For the Father gave to Peter the revelation of the Son; but the Son gave him to sow that of the Father and that of Himself in every part of the world; and to a mortal man He entrusted the authority over all things in Heaven, giving him the keys; who extended the church to every part of the world, and declared it to be stronger than heaven. "For heaven and earth shall pass away, but my word shall not pass away."How then is He less, who hath given such gifts, hath effected such things? And these things I say, not dividing the works of Father and Son ("for all things are made by Him, and without Him was nothing made which was made"):but bridling the shameless tongue of them that dare so to speak. But see, throughout all, His authority: "I say unto thee, Thou art Peter; I will build the Church; I will give thee the keys of Heaven." ----- end quote -----Let me paraphrase what you said to Johnny, "I have to wonder, Theophilus, if you took this from the original text of Chrysostom, or whether you simply lifted it out of some Quote book or website, like so many other Protestant "apologists".Catholic Guy Link to comment
Catholic Guy Posted October 9, 2006 Share Posted October 9, 2006 CyprianWith a false bishop appointed for themselves by heretics, they dare even to set sail and carry letters from schismatics and blasphemers to the Chair of Peter and to the principal church [at Rome], in which sacerdotal unity has its source" (Epistle to Cornelius [bishop of Rome] 59:14 [A.D. 252]).This is an incomplete reference, as Cyprian wrote a number of epistles to Cornelius, and none of them contain the phrase, "Chair of Peter".The Lord says to Peter: "I say to you," he says, "that you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church" . . . On him he builds the Church, and to him he gives the command to feed the sheep John 21:17], and although he assigns a like power to all the apostles, yet he founded a single chair [cathedra], and he established by his own authority a source and an intrinsic reason for that unity. Indeed, the others were that also which Peter was [i.e., apostles], but a primacy is given to Peter, whereby it is made clear that there is but one Church and one chair. So too, all [the apostles] are shepherds, and the flock is shown to be one, fed by all the apostles in single-minded accord. If someone does not hold fast to this unity of Peter, can he imagine that he still holds the faith? If he [should] desert the chair of Peter upon whom the Church was built, can he still be confident that he is in the Church? (The Unity of the Catholic Church 4 [A.D. 251]).Your quotes are becoming highly suspect at this point.Here is Cyprian's Treatise, as found at ccel.org:----- begin quote -----4. If any one consider and examine these things, there is no need for lengthened discussion and arguments. There is easy proof for faith in a short summary of the truth. The Lord speaks to Peter,10 saying, "I say unto thee, that thou art Peter; and upon this rock I will build my Church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven; and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound also in heaven, and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven."11 And again to the same He says, after His resurrection, "Feed nay sheep."12 "13 yet, that He might set forth unity, He arranged by His authority the origin of that unity, as beginning from one. Assuredly the rest of the apostles were also the same as was Peter, endowed with a like partnership both of honour and power; but the beginning proceeds from unity.14 Which one Church, also, the Holy Spirit in the Song of Songs designated in the person of our Lord, and says, "My dove, my spotless one, is but one. She is the only one of her mother, elect of her that bare her."15 Does he who does not hold this unity of the Church think that he holds the faith? Does he who strives against and resists the Church16 trust that he is in the Church, when moreover the blessed Apostle Paul teaches the same thing, and sets forth the sacrament of unity, saying, "There is one body and one spirit, one hope of your calling, one Lord, one faith, one baptism, one God? "17 ----- end quote -----No mention of "primacy given to Peter".No mention of "single chair [cathedra]".No mentin of "the chair of Peter".Theophilis,I think its time for a history lesson! Pope Fabianus (236-250) killed in persecution of Decius in 250 left the "chair of peter" vacant. Felicissimus and Novatus(Novatianus anti-pope) started a schism in the Church and Novatianus assumed the primacy of Peter with a lack of form. At the same time Rome sent a letter to the council of Carthage(251) stating that Cornelius had been validly set "in the place of Peter". This created confusion in the church because as Cyprian says that Novatian "assumed the primacy" (Ep. lxix, 8 ) and sent out his new apostles to very many cities; and where in all provinces and cities there were long established, orthodox bishops, tried in persecution, he dared to create new ones to supplant them, as though he could range through the whole world (Ep. lv, 24). This shows how powerful Novatian was. Cornelius sent a letter to Cyprian and complained of the delay in recognizing him. Cyprian wrote to Cornelius explaining his conduct in the matter (this is the first quote Johnny refers to):With a false bishop appointed for themselves by heretics, they dare even to set sail and carry letters from schismatics and blasphemers to the Chair of Peter and to the principal church [at Rome], in which sacerdotal unity has its source" (Epistle to Cornelius [bishop of Rome] 59:14 [A.D. 252])He added a letter to the confessors who were the main support of the antipope. With both of these letters He sent copies of "De Unitate" and "De Lapsis". He sent the confessors the version of "De Unitate" with an added section so that they could understand what a fearful thing a schism would be. This section is the second quote johnny refers to: . . bound in heaven. Upon one He builds His Church, and to the same He says after His resurrection, 'feed My sheep'. And though to all His Apostles He gave an equal power yet did He set up one chair, and disposed the origin and manner of unity by his authority. The other Apostles were indeed what Peter was, but the primacy is given to Peter, and the Church and the chair is shown to be one. And all are pastors, but the flock is shown to be one, which is fed by all the Apostles with one mind and heart. He that holds not this unity of the Church, does he think that he holds the faith? He who deserts the chair of Peter, upon whom the Church is founded, is he confident that he is in the Church? (Cyprian of Carthage, De Unitate 4 [A.D. 251]) Looking at the historical context of the ECF's writings helps instead of just verifying them on one Protestant website and inferring that someoneâ??s sources look suspect. As for what you posted Theophilis, your right that the original passage that is found in most manuscripts is written this way:If any will consider this, there is no need of a long treatise and of arguments. 'The Lord saith to Peter: 'I say unto thee that thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build My Church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it; to thee I will give the keys to the kingdom of heaven, and what thou shalt have bound on earth shall be bound in heaven, and what thou shalt have loosed shall be loosed in heaven.' Upon one He builds His Church, and though to all His Apostles after His resurrection He gives an equal power and says: 'As My Father hath sent Me, even so send I you: Receive the Holy Ghost, whosesoever sins you shall have remitted they shall be remitted unto them, and whosesoever sins you shall have retained they shall be retained', yet that He might make unity manifest, He disposed the origin of that unity beginning from one. The other Apostles were indeed what Peter was, endowed with a like fellowship both of honour and of power, but the commencement proceeds from one, that the Church may be shown to be one. This one Church the Holy Ghost in the person of the Lord designates in the Canticle of Canticles, and says, One is My Dove, My perfect one, one is she to her mother, one to her that bare her. He that holds not this unity of the Church, does he believe that he holds the Faith? He who strives against and resists the Church, is he confident that he is in the Church? (Cyprian of Carthage, De Unitate 4 [A.D. 251]) So with regard to your statements:No mention of "primacy given to Peter".No mention of "single chair [cathedra]".No mentin of "the chair of Peter".Yes there is.Yes there is.Yes there is.Catholic Guy Link to comment
Catholic Guy Posted October 11, 2006 Share Posted October 11, 2006 Not at all.All it does is demonstrate to me that Catholics will cling to anything, no matter how weak, to try to read into the ECF's their belief of "Petrine primacy".It is the Catholics (and LDS, by extension), who are arguing "Petrine primacy". Therefore, the burden of proof is on you, not on me.TheophilusTheophilis,Are we finished with this discussion? Should I even bother with the rest of the OP and Johnny's ECF quotes? Catholic Guy Link to comment
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.